Joe Dumars Blew It!
by RoundBallOne on Jan 18, 2010 6:05 PM EST
Email
Print
Joe Dumars should have taken a good look at David Lee back in the summer of 2009. I was amazed that no one in Detroit was talking about this big, hard playing kid. When I mentioned him to Pistons fans back in the summer, they didn't even know who he was. But Joe D knew who he was and could have robbed New York of David Lee instead of signing the lame Charlie Villanueva. If Joe had made an offer for David Lee for 30 mill, New York would not have matched it because of the up coming Lebron sweepstakes. Joe dropped the ball on this one. David Lee is a far better player than Villanueva. Next time Joe, don't rush to sign players for so much money. Joe acted very irresponsibly with the cash he had to spend.
FanPosts are user-created posts from the Detroit Bad Boys community and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of all fans or the staff at DBB. The DBB staff reserves the right at any time to edit the contents of FanPosts as they reasonably see fit.
51 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
$30 million over what?
5 years? 4 years? 3 years? New York would have matched any one of those offers. The only reason Lee signed so cheaply was because of the lack of suitors. Had Detroit forced New York’s hand, it would have taken quite the offer to cause them to back off.
Keep in mind that Dumars was actually interested in Lee, but didn’t want to play games with Walsh, who could have dragged out the process.
by Terrence J. Lynch on Jan 18, 2010 6:10 PM EST reply actions
This was posted about a few weeks ago.
http://www.detroitbadboys.com/2009/12/30/1225244/why-didnt-joe-make-a-move-for-him
I believe the phrase was "center's game in a power forward's body"
Lee has really expanded his offensive repetoire this year in a rather unprecedented way. He used to be restricted to scoring within five feet of the basket. Now, he is more of a threat offensively, but there was really no way to predict that. We all figured him to be a better rebounder than Charlie, about even on defense, and not as good offensively. I think more of us would have been more pro-Lee had we known he was going to improve so much.
yeah
absolutely, I was in the “center’s game in a PF’s body” chorus, loud as hell. but you’re right, the expansion of dude’s game this season has entirely killed any complaints we had about dude going into this season. totally unreal, and if it weren’t for the fact that he’s still putting up stud numbers, the differences in his game alone could make him a MIP candidate.
I was actually thinking about this...
During yesterday’s game, and I got to thinking about current trends in the NBA.
It seems to me that big guys who play like guards are currently all kind of hot. “Stretch 4’s” yada yada yada. Bargnani (spelling?) in Toronto, our own Charlie V, etc., etc. These guys tend to play away from the basket, because they have good shooting/ball handling skills — like a Guard would have. On the flip side, they tend to get a lot fewer rebounds, because they’re playing away from the basket.
So these are big guys who play like guards — or guards in a PF’s body — yet that is considered an asset.
Why doesn’t it work in reverse? I mean, if the criticism is that David Lee plays like a C — and a very, very good C at that — but he’s stuck in a PF’s body, why should that be a net negative instead of a net positive? The dude scores points, defends hard, and rebounds like a machine. Who cares what position he plays and more importantly how he scores, rebounds and defends when he’s doing them all so well?
The thing is...
David Lee is now a “Stretch 4”— and he wasn’t last season. The concern about David Lee last year was that his offensive game was only efficient around the basket.
Stretch 4s provide two important values to a team’s offense— indirectly, a spacing of the defense for slashing guards and directly, spot up 3s and perimeter play. A spaced defense is more conducive to driving guards (see: the offense that joe built), and should that defense move to focus on the driving guard that guard can kick the ball out to said Stretch 4 for a long jumper or a 3. Inversely, and in theory, a “C in a PFs body” 4 and a standard 5 (plus their defenders) clog the lane to make driving more difficult. Also, there are less penetrate-and-kick opportunities, and interior passing is more turnover-prone due to all the bodies in the paint. With a Stretch 4, a coach can run plays that will force defenses to spread and thereby improve penetration. After the last round of rule changes after our championship, penetration became the name of the game.
Here’s the thing, though. David Lee is now a stretch 4. He wasn’t last year, but he is now. And he’s damned effective.
Last season:
32% of Lee’s shots were jumpers, on which he converted at 35%.
This season:
47% of Lee’s shots were jumpers, on which he converted at 44%.
For those following along at home, that is UNREAL. Like I said above, MIP-worthy. The thing is, “Most Improved Player” awards come from an increase in numbers, not a change in how those numbers are generated. Lee’s improvements are terribly significant in that he’s practically doubled in value as a result of being able to hit jumpers and space the floor. If $10M was a stretch last season, it isn’t now— and his $$ ceiling is increasing with every jumper that he makes.
Last season, when DBB was talking about how to spend its salary cap, a lot of people were calling for David Lee. We discussed the fact that Lee was not a stretch four, and his game didn’t provide the defense and shot blocking to play him at the 5. When discussing that, Quick Darshan said he believed David Lee could improve his shooting and stretch beyond the paint. I didn’t think he could.
Quick Darshan, do you have any recipes in mind with which I can prepare this crow? Mike. Payne. Loses.
(in my own defense though, that discussion was about both David Lee and Paul Millsap, and I did say that Lee had a better chance of expanding his game that Millsap does, which I still stand by— I don’t think Millsap has any stretch to him at all)
All of that is well and good. You make a good case, as always, and I agree with a lot of what you have said.
I guess the question I’m asking is this: does “stretching (dare I say deforming?) the defense” — an immeasurable, intangible, and unquantifiable quality — trump the ability to get lots of rebounds and score points. I’m inclined to think that the former does all of what you say it does, but how often? How can we measure it to determine its value?
I don’t know the answer to that. It makes for a fun debate.
I do know this much, though:
1) David Lee is a very good player. He was very good before this season, and as you’ve demonstrated very well, he’s even better now.
1b) David Lee has killed the Pistons this year.
2) When Rasheed was here, we bemoaned his tendency to float around the perimeter and shoot too many 3’s. How many times did we literally beg for Rasheed to get inside (and clog the lane at least some of the time)?
3) Now that Charlie’s here, almost everyone is asking him to play more in the post, use his impressive low post skill set, and shoot fewer 3’s.
I guess we just want to have our cake and eat it, too. We want the guy who is capable of doing what David Lee does (rebound like a beast and score around the basket) and what Dirk Nowitzki is capable of, too (shoot the 3, score off the dribble, stretch the defense). KG is the closest thing I can think of in the current generation of players who does all of that…
If something is unquantifiable, does it not exist?
Paraphrasing your question, “does stretching the defense trump the ability to get rebounds and score”
The two are not mutually contextual. One deals with individual player production, the other with team architecture.
The ability to stretch a defense is a roster-level concern, one that is possibly more important for the Detroit Pistons than other teams. Jonas Jerebko, Ben Wallace, Rodney Stuckey… these are players who score well in the paint, and don’t perform well beyond 10’ (it’s safe to add Rip Hamilton to that list as well). Add a PF to that mix who can’t stretch a defense, and you have a predictable offense that needs to get into the paint to perform. Since defenses can sag off the perimeter and not worry about outside shooting, it makes it penetration very, very difficult.
Is it a surprise that this is our best lineup?
Bynum-Gordon-Stuckey-Villanueva-Wallace (70% w/l)
Our two best three point shooters space the floor, our two best penetrating guards drive and score or dish. We have post scoring and a strong defensive anchor.
As opposed to our worst lineup:
Bynum-Stuckey-Jerebko-Maxiell-Wallace (12.5% w/l)
which can’t score outside of 10’ to save its life.
Long story short, ever since David Stern implemented the Piston Rules after our championship, penetration became one of a team’s most important values. It was then that Stretch 4s really became en vogue, as a well-spaced offense is paramount for potent penetration.
What if I had said “unquantified” instead. I didn’t mean to imply that it’s not possible to quantify it. I did mean that I don’t know how to quantify its value relative to other abilities/contributions that are well-documented/quantified.
Again, I don’t disagree with you. I know that floor spacing is a vital component of a successful offense. But I don’t know its relative value, and I don’t know of any good way to establish at at this particular moment.
In other words, I don’t know the relative value of having a PF who contributes to total team spacing at the expense of rebounding and scoring around the basket. (I think for the most part, PFs tend to be good at one or the other, with a few exceptions). If you’re playing a “stretch” role at the PF spot, you’re going to be spending a good deal of time away from the basket, yes? So by default, your opportunities for offensive rebounds, put back buckets, and assisted buckets around the rim are diminished, right? I think both roles can be very important (as I mentioned in the Milsap vs. CV discussion).
Does that makes sense?
Here’s another way I can try to put it: What is more (not most) valuable? A PF who can stretch the floor for his teammates, presumably knock down some open jumpshots, convert on good passes from teammates and thus generate assists? Or, a PF who crashes the offensive glass, and thus extends possessions, and scores some additional baskets around the rim off of passes from his teammates and O bebounds?
I think your point about best/worse lineups gives us some conversation about this specific team, but I’m not sure if it helps us get at an objective value for stretching the floor (unless I’m missing something), not just for this specific team in the present and immediate future, but for overall player and team evaluation.
Not to be an ass, but when you tell me that our worst lineup contains JJ, Max, and Ben in the frontcourt, my reaction doesn’t have anything to do with poor spacing … Instead, my thoughts immediately go to undeveloped and/or incompetent offensive ability generally. Know what I mean? Yes, you’ve got four guys with zero range, but you’ve also got two three guys who struggle mightily to do anything on offense, except get fast break dunks or garbage buckets.
Again, intuitively, I agree with you 100% about the importance of spacing (and also off the ball player movement, as an aside). I just don’t know how to quantify it so as to establish a value relative to other important components of the game.
Here’s another way I can try to put it: What is more (not most) valuable? A PF who can stretch the floor for his teammates, presumably knock down some open jumpshots, convert on good passes from teammates and thus generate assists? Or, a PF who crashes the offensive glass, and thus extends possessions, and scores some additional baskets around the rim off of passes from his teammates and O bebounds?
I’ll say it again, The two are not mutually contextual. One deals with individual player production, the other with team architecture. A player’s ability to stretch defenses only matter in context to the rest of the roster. So they’re not comparable traits. Our roster, as constructed, needs a stretch four. Hence my mention of those lineups.
The two are not mutually contextual. One deals with individual player production, the other with team architecture
I don’t think I’m understanding you on this point.
I’m trying to say this: there are some basketball contributions to which it is easy to assign value(the tangibles, like rebounding or blocks). There are some basketball contributions to which it is difficult to assign objective and/or relative value (the intangibles, like setting a good screen, stretching the floor, positioning oneself properly, etc.).
The argument in favor of a guy like CV is that he does some of those things that are currently not quantified (and thus no objective/relative value has been assigned) very well, and those contributions outweigh the things that he doesn’t do well (that Power Forwards traditionally do well).
The argument in favor of a guy like Lee (before this season anyway) was that he did the things that traditional PFs do, like rebound, shoot a high FG% (because most FGAs are coming from close range) etc., etc.
I’m inclined to think that the former is relatively more valuable as a general rule. I think you’re arguing that the general rule doesn’t apply in this case, because of team architecture — is that a fair understanding?
A player’s ability to stretch defenses only matter in context to the rest of the roster. So they’re not comparable traits. Our roster, as constructed, needs a stretch four.
Or, a PG and SF who can shoot, right?
I think Gabe’s point is that it’s a lot easier to find guards and SF’s who can shoot than it is to find PFs who have range and are also beasts on the glass and are good interior defenders. (right, Gabe?).
Oops, fail
I’m inclined to think that the
formershould say “latter” is relatively more valuable as a general rule. I think you’re arguing that the general rule doesn’t apply in this case, because of team architecture — is that a fair understanding?
I think you and Gabe may be thinking I’m saying more than I am. In this conversation, I never compared Charlie Villanueva to David Lee. All I’ve talked about is who David Lee was last year, who he is now, and that comparing stretch-ability to player production is comparing apples to oranges, because stretch-ability is a roster level need.
Or, a PG and SF who can shoot, right?
Here’s the context. We talked about Lee in April, May and June prior to the CV/BG signings and the draft. At the time, it was likely that Kwame Brown would start at C this year (with amir, rasheed and dyess departing), and we’d bring in a PF.
So this was our roster:
Stuckey
Hamilton
Prince
?
Brown
I didn’t want guys like Millsap or Lee because at the time, neither had an offense beyond 10 feet. So in the context of this roster or team architecture, a stretch four was optimal, in that it would create necessary spacing to run efficient penetration plays.
I did mention that Lee was a decent option (not my first preference), but that if we went for Lee we should try to sign Mehmet Okur as our starting center. If Lee’s offense was within 10’, Okur would help stretch things out. During those conversations, I even mentioned that Okur would be better with Millsap in Utah than Boozer, as Okur is a 4 in a 5’s body and Millsap is a 5 in a 4s body.
MP: Here’s what I think is the counter-argument to what your saying:
Stretch 4’s are only as good as the center they are paired with.
How has CV looked when he’s not paired with Big Ben?
How effective would Rashard Lewis’s “stretching” be if Howard wasn’t down low?
The positives of having a stretch PF (extra 3 point shooting, spacing) outweighs the negatives (less rebounding, generally lower efficiency than interior-focused PF’s) only when the stretch PF is paired with a particularly awesome center. Otherwise the loss of efficiency and rebounding from the PF position is a net negative.
IMO, with a beast of a center who can pick up the rebounding and defending slack, a stretch PF can be effective. But what is in shorter supply: middlingly efficient pick and pop PF/SF’s, or stud defensive centers?
Not a counter-argument at all
In fact, you’re in agreement with what I’m saying. I said above, The ability to stretch a defense is a roster-level concern.
Sorta, it’s a counter argument in the sense that you are saying CV is valuable because his skills fit with our needs, and what I’m saying, along with brgulker, is that his skills aren’t particularly rare and the type of player capable of covering for his weaknesses is very hard to find.
With much respect, I’m not sure where this is coming from. You’re putting words into my mouth:
you are saying CV is valuable because his skills fit with our needs
I haven’t said anything about CV at all.
what I’m saying, along with brgulker, is that his skills aren’t particularly rare
And I have not disputed this once, nor have I mentioned anything related to it. We talking about the same thing?
My bad
Sorry if I took something you said out of context or didn’t sum things up accurately, definitely no disrespect intended.
I think the crux of our difference in opinion is here:
So this was our roster:
Stuckey
Hamilton
Prince
?
Brown
I didn’t want guys like Millsap or Lee because at the time, neither had an offense beyond 10 feet. So in the context of this roster or team architecture, a stretch four was optimal, in that it would create necessary spacing to run efficient penetration plays.
If you put a “?” in Kwame’s place, then (IMO) our options for PF’s opened up quite a bit. I think a core of Stuckey/Rip/Tay could play with almost any type of big man, which is why I wanted us to get the best possible guy and then fit the pieces around him.
I know you haven’t argued that he is- but clearly CV is not that guy. He’s the type of player you pick up after you already have the big beast at center, the dude who can compensate for the holes in CV’s game.
That’s why I liked Lee, even before he added the improved jumper, because he was so strong in several areas that he could have compensated for a player that had some weaknesses.
If you put a "?" in Kwame’s place, then (IMO) our options for PF’s opened up quite a bit.
Of course not, if that’s the crux of our difference of opinion then we don’t have one. I don’t think there is a difference of opinion, only that mine is either being taken out of context or misrepresented.
If you put a "?" in Kwame’s place
Then that wouldn’t be our roster, would it? If that were the case, Lee would be fine. Like I said above:
“I did mention that Lee was a decent option (not my first preference), but that if we went for Lee we should try to sign Mehmet Okur as our starting center.”
Last:
I know you haven’t argued that he is- but clearly CV is not that guy.
No doubt— I never wanted CV, he wasn’t even on my list of potential free agents.
Fair enough, I should have just agreed with your post that Lee has improved greatly and would currently be a perfect fit with most of our core.
The pros/cons of stretch vs. interior PF’s is something that is still being figured out, and both sides have some data on their sides.
Personally (and this probably isn’t a surprise), I think overall efficiency is the most important thing. If a player can be efficient shooting jumpers and threes, then he’s clearly helping. If he can’t make those shots efficiently, then it’s harder to say.
(warning- ramble coming)
Efficient scoring is (IMO) the most telling stat in basketball, because I really think it gives a general sense of a players basketball intelligence.
A player who is consistently around a TS% of .600, and an eFG% of .55 (like Lee throughout his career) is showing he has an awareness of his own strengths and weaknesses and is able to mostly stay within his strengths.
IMO, if a player is that highly efficient, there is a solid chance they will be able to expand their games with time/experience, because it’s pretty much impossible to score at that rate, in the NBA, without innate basketball skills/intelligence.
(end ramble)
The pros/cons of stretch vs. interior PF’s is something that is still being figured out, and both sides have some data on their sides.
That’s really all I was trying to get at.
There are objective measures to evaluate players, and then there are subjective measures to evaluate players.
It seems to me that there is less objective data to evaluate the benefits of a “stretch” player, and therefore, that player’s value relative to other, more traditional players is harder to ascertain.
Fun with the New DBB Search Engine
I was poking through comments about Villanueva before we signed him, and saw a comment I wrote in reply to you, Gabe, which kind of reflects how our collective heads were in the same place then, and still are now:
http://www.detroitbadboys.com/2009/6/30/1216772/carlos-boozer-is-staying-in-utah#27654563
and my offseason priorities:
http://www.detroitbadboys.com/2009/6/9/1216746/nba-finals-game-3-4-open-thread#27652536
MP The Prophet?
Personally, I’m of the opinion that winning fills seats moreso than personalities. I don’t want Gordon on this team because, like you, I recognize that he does NOT fill a need on our roster as is currently constructed. And Villanueva? Fuck no…
If we go into training camp with this roster:
Stuckey/Gordon
Hamilton/Gordon
Prince
Villanueva
Brown
We will lose more games than we did last year. We’ll have greater defensive problems, no rebounding (miss you, dyess), and less efficient scoring. Our team wide FG% will drop, our competitor’s FG/possession will go up, we’ll have a logjam at the 2 that might force out Rip when there is no reason he should leave. WTF.
Lol @ myself
Here’s my reaction to the BG + CV signings:
Oh well; I can’t handle this anymore. Too much disappointment for one season, and all the hope seems to have been squashed in a matter of hours.
NY Would have matched any offer.....
……enough said.
by BennieBladesFan on Jan 18, 2010 9:51 PM EST reply actions
Besides.....
….We can get a btter big man next fa season in Brendan Haywood.
by BennieBladesFan on Jan 18, 2010 9:52 PM EST reply actions
Haywood's too old
It would take at least a 3 year deal to get him… and we’d get him in the twighlight of his career, after coming of a career year, which was also a contract year.
Haywood’s good, but he’s not the answer for us, if you ask me.
wtf?
Brendan Haywood has had, what, 40 good games in his entire career. And he’s old. He’s 1/10th the player David Lee is on a good day.
I second this wtf?.
I’m sure there is someone better out there that we could spend money on. Pretty much anybody really.
My Music: Now on last.fm!!
My Blog: Inside A Head
I wanted David Lee. :(
(I also thought Iverson would fit in off the bench, so that goes to show that I know nothing)
by garrettelliott on Jan 18, 2010 11:24 PM EST reply actions
No matter, Dumars
Lee was unobtainable before. No big deal. Now that he’s fast approaching his prime, go out and get the man next time he’s available.
"We’re going to turn this team around 360 degrees." –Jason Kidd
I wanted Lee. Badly.
I thought he was underrated around the league (also possibly by the Knicks) and that his overall level of production was comparable to several players who will end up making far more money. cough… Bosh… cough.
I’m still not at all convinced that the Knicks would have matched even a reasonable offer (especially if the contract was structured to make the maximum cap impact in 2010).
Past is past, but damn… Players as good as Lee don’t come on the market all that often, and it happened to coincide perfectly with the year we had lots of cap space. *single tear. Oh well.
The question is, what would it have taken for NY to not match?
I mean, I’d much rather sink 58 million into Lee than Gordon (prepares for tomatoes), and I think NY would have thought twice about that, but I’d rather not spend that much money on him …
Yeah, it’s impossible to know for sure. But I’m with you that (IMO) there’s no doubt signing Lee would have been a better use of $58m.
Once Jod made it clear he was going to spend the money no matter what (which, btw, was a poor move for his bargaining power in contract negotiations), I was just hoping that he would spend it on the most productive players who fit our needs, even if it meant overpaying.
Probably $50M/5 Years
But that at the time would be seriously overpaying.
by V. on Jan 20, 2010 3:16 AM EST up reply actions
Basically, the market on DLee looked like $7M/yr with a 4-5 yr deal. Walsh said Knicks would match pretty much any offer. Lee’s agent was asking in the neighborhood in $9-$10M/yr. IIRC, on DBB 1.0 there was a great deal of trashing of Lee.
At the same time, Lee was a RFA, CV an UFA. Do you wait to see whether Walsh matches or not while CV signs somewhere else? I don’t think so, and I think Chris Broussard had it right, Dumars has a vision for this, be if he’s not going to share it with Broussard, or even Chad Ford, he’s certainly not going to share it with us.
I appreciate the fact that many DBBers are younger guys. When I was young, I didn’t have a lot of patience either. But you’re going to have to wait this one out, and maybe until 2011 to see what’ the vision is.
For all the trashing of JD, no one has yet to answer my question, both here and on v1.0, who would you replace him with, outside of Burford or Presti?
Dumars finds two quality big men, we’re relevant again. Let’s wait and see who the two big men are.
Let’s say the Dumars vision is to bring in CV31 as a complimentary player, his salary would certainly indicate this.
by V. on Jan 20, 2010 3:55 PM EST up reply actions
might have been cool
to make ny pay higher, like 13 mil a season, then let them keep lee and then watch them go even more frigging crazy trying to clear cap space at the trade deadline.
Good. Bad. I'm the guy with the gun.
David Lee was available and could have been a steal for the Pistons
New York would not have matched any offer that extended to 2010 -11. He was available to all for a steal. Teams did not go after him because of the perception his numbers were being padded secondary to the horrible play of the fast paced Knicks. No way the knicks would have matched any offer that took away cap space for summer 2010.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Detroit Bad Boys
Related FanShots on Detroit Bad Boys
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recommended FanShots
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
